Taxi driver clearly in the wrong. However, if I was driving my car and someone cut me up like that, if I rolled down the window and stuck my hand out and thumped the offending vehicle I would expect the situation would not improve. The cyclist loses his moral high ground for thumping the taxi.

Taxi driver clearly in the wrong. However, if I was driving my car and someone cut me up like that, if I rolled down the window and stuck my hand out and thumped the offending vehicle I would expect the situation would not improve. The cyclist loses his moral high ground for thumping the taxi.

If u were driving ypu would probavly lean on the horn to wake offending driver up. Cyclists clearly don't have that option and when you are on a bike the imminent threat to life and limb is personified far beyond anything you will experience in a car. In such instances a slap on the bodywork can wake someone up who genuinely hasnt seen you. Its not ideal but if it prevents further movement into your safe space as a cyclist so be it.

In such instances a slap on the bodywork can wake someone up who genuinely hasnt seen you.

Of course it would, but I wouldn't be expecting it to put the owner of the vehicle in a good mood, as thumping the car would be viewed as an aggressive reaction.

In this case the taxi approached from behind so was already aware of the cyclist, so I doubt he would have been run over in any case. Indeed things would have probably worked out better for him as he wouldn't have an eejit taxi driver shouting in his face.

His follow up video has an element of cyclist persecution complex to it though.

Taxi driver clearly in the wrong. However, if I was driving my car and someone cut me up like that, if I rolled down the window and stuck my hand out and thumped the offending vehicle I would expect the situation would not improve. The cyclist loses his moral high ground for thumping the taxi.

If you were driving and found yourself in that situation would you blow the horn at the taxi driver? The Rules of the Road suggest you do so to make others aware of your presence when necessary and this is a situation that seems to qualify. You'd expect that blowing your horn would not be taken by the other party as an aggressive action on your part, right?

While driving my car on a roundabout a while back another car drove onto the roundabout in front of me. I hit the brakes and blew the horn. Turns out he was taking the same exit at me. It also turns out he took grave offense at my blowing the horn 'cos on the next roundabout a few hundred metres further along, where he was directly in front of me, he slammed on the brakes, hopped out of his car (essentially parking his car on the roundabout), and stormed towards my car to take issue with me. Apparently, in his mind my blowing the horn at him was something that warranted a violent response.

The moral of the story is that it is impossible to predict what will trigger an aggressive reaction in people with issues. That bus driver has issues. The taxi driver in the other clip has issues. The driver I encountered above has issues. You might like to believe that there are very cleanly delineated categories of things that are somehow acceptable to do while on the road, and things that constitute "acting the bollox" which apparently deserve some form of punishment, but you'd be wrong. Things are rarely as black and white as that. The cyclist reacted to apparent dangerous driving on the part of the bus driver (the incident not captured in the video clip), the bus driver's response was completely out of proportion and that cannot be blamed on the cyclist. You might take issue with the way in which the cyclist reacted, but in the heat of the moment any of us might well react in a way that we wouldn't with a cooler head. You also can't possibly know how little or how much that reaction by the cyclist affected the bus driver, the actions taken by bus driver demonstrate that he was unstable and in different circumstances perhaps even a car blowing its horn at him would have caused him to target the source of annoyance. This incident is less about a cyclist versus a bus driver and more about a very dangerous individual (who happens to be a bus driver) and the target of his aggression on the day (who happens to be a cyclist).

Suppose the horn wasn't working, would it be acceptable to thump the other car in that case? I think not.

"Thumping" is a rather subjective judgement. One person's knocking on a door could be another person's thumping on a door. Slapping on a car's body has the same effect as knocking on someone's door or blowing your horn, it makes a noise that gets someone's attention. As long as someone doesn't hit it so hard as to cause damage...

Suppose the horn wasn't working, would it be acceptable to thump the other car in that case? I think not.

If someone in a moving car has contrived to drive in a manner that they are within arms reach of an unprotected human being then, by that fact, it suggests that some form of dangerous or inconsiderate driving has taken place. In these situations adrenalin tends to take over - thats what its for.

I recall a woman in a car trying to come up inside me and turn with me as I was turning to the right - out of a side road. The apparent intent of her manouevre was to place me in a situation where I would be on the wrong side of the road when finished. I banged on her side window with my left-hand - I did not have to move my elbow much past 90 degrees to do so.

They are to some people, that's entirely my point. Unstable people are, well, unstable, the clue is in the name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by n97 mini

Suppose the horn wasn't working, would it be acceptable to thump the other car in that case? I think not.

Well if the choice is between thumping the other car to attract their attention to a potential collision, or simply letting the collision happen without making any effort to alert them, then sure you could choose the latter option. In that situation it's your choice, so it's obviously your prerogative to make no effort to warn the other driver, but it'll probably mean that you are held at least partly culpable for the accident and any costs or penalties incurred may be shared by you and the other party. Some people would call that choice irresponsible and/or silly though.

Not to mention that you are obliged to ensure that your horn is in working order or that will add to your culpability as your vehicle may be deemed unsafe to drive.

Potential. There was no collision, and we do not know if there would have been one if he hadn't thumped the car.

And the only way for the owner to inspect for damage is to stop the car and get out, right?

Honestly. If anyone thinks that thumping someone else's car, or interfering with their property in any other way is acceptable in any circumstance, my advice would be don't try it at home kids.

I think it's safe to say that you've never cycled in traffic.

Ive never 'thumped' a car myself, but in a situation like the video above, where a multi-ton vehicle is trying to crush me into the side of the road Id have absolutely no hesitation in doing whatever was necessary to get the attention of the driver. Its also an instinctive reaction when something tries to squash you - you push back, its not aggressive.

If anything, you're doing the driver a service - warning him that they are driving dangerously and on the verge of committing an act of criminal negligence which could easily result in a manslaughter charge..

Potential. There was no collision, and we do not know if there would have been one if he hadn't thumped the car.

If I follow your logic correctly - it would be ok to wave a loaded gun in someone's face provided you don't actually pull the trigger? If someone feels threatened by that behaviour then thats their problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by n97 mini

Honestly. If anyone thinks that thumping someone else's car, or interfering with their property in any other way is acceptable in any circumstance, my advice would be don't try it at home kids.

So again if I understand your logic correctly, the fact that a car is private property entitles the owner to engage in threatening behaviour on the basis that the law protects personal property rights above the personal safety of others?

If I follow your logic correctly - it would be ok to wave a loaded gun in someone's face provided you don't actually pull the trigger? If someone feels threatened by that behaviour then thats their problem?

No-one had any guns. Seriously people, can we stick to the facts and stop trying to invent hypothetical situations to prove points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by galwaycyclist

So again if I understand your logic correctly, the fact that a car is private property entitles the owner to engage in threatening behaviour

No, you clearly do not understand.

I'll put it as simply as possible for you: Just as no-one is entitled to use threatening behaviour, no-one has the right to interfere with anyone else's property.

Now this is the fuzzy bit, so do try to keep up: Interfering with someone else's property may cause them to get annoyed with you.